December 2003 - cypherpunks-legacy

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 17:21:26 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > He is right--to an extent. Monopolies _can_ exist in a free market > under 2 conditions: > 1) Early stages of a market, when the creator/initial entrant has a > lead on the competition. This will (without "government" intervention) end > at some point unless: Actualy, without a copyright or some similar 3rd party regulatory intervention this is one of the points in a market development when a monopoly *can't* develop. At this stage of the game the entry cost is minimal and many potential groups have access to the necessary commodities (real and intellectual) to get into the business. This also happens to be when violence has the highest pay-off in staying in the market. It's the strategy of the business that determines if it can *stay* in the market. To put it in terms capable of modelling, consider a petri dish with various bacteria arranged around it. To start, no colony of any particular type (comparable to business strategy) controls the entire surface of the ager. Only after the market matures and competition begins to reduce the number of colonies and the area of the colonies increases do we begin to see a monopolization effect. This is modelled quite simply with cellular automatons. At this point in time what happens in a real-world business is that somebody gets a bright idea. He acts on that idea and starts a business. In order for that business to grow and prosper at some point employees must be hired. Those employees learn the business and some point one or more decide that since there are more people wanting widgets than there are widgets being made it looks like a good time to quit. That ex-employee starts up a company. The original employer has no way to prevent this short of overt violence, no laws or protective agents have been violated because there is no 3rd party to act as guarantor to the employment contract or the intellectual property rights. Now we have two companies making widgets. These products are consumed and resupplied at a profit and both companies (it is easy to extend this to n-parties so I'll stay with two for brevity) continue to grow until market saturation. Now some folks will claim the employer can impliment a limited access policy to the technology and product. This strategy will not work. As another potential supplier I put out an add asking for anybody who *used* to work in that industry to come by for a job. I hire them, drain their brain, and impliment my competitors system. Once the market saturates there isn't enough 'spare' money floating around to stay in business, hence new businesses in that field don't start up unless another fails unexpectedly; if its expected other competitors will begin bidding economicaly for those potential new customers. The existing employers are always trying to hire their competitors so there is a constant motivation to defect from the employees perspective (ala computer industry). Imagine the impact of these sorts of dynamics on banks and the issuance of effective currencies and how that impacts travel and at-a-distance business (such as across the big pond). Even such technologies as e$ won't solve this problem because for one variety to have a chance at the market it must be widely respected, implying a very large share of the market approaching mono-e$ token saturation. So we create a monopoly in our rush to eliminate monopolies via technology. Monopolies are a function of doing business and not any political or mathematics aspect. It's axiomatic in nature. Monopolies themselves, something we haven't even touched on, have both positive and negative characteristics. These characteristics can in fact be described to a very good degree of precision. Now if there were a mechanism to move a more rational and experience based set of laws and regulations into business then we might make some progress toward creating a society (due to moderated market activity - by a *impartial* 3rd party) where investment in technology and its application toward automation creates a situation where everyone invests a sufficient amount of income to retire in a very small number of years. Another point to be made is at no time have I required these various inter-active producers and consumers to be in lock step or have been created at the same time. Nor do they, in principle or practice, have a requirement for such things as instant market change propogation and rational participants, etc. Those issues are irrelevant except early in human history when these sorts of issues are intitialy introduced into a culture. If people can't fulfill one desire, they'll fulfill another. The result is that the same base set of human emotions and desires, expressed through a cultures bias, that varies widely in content, context, and expression, will in fact find a way to express the same basic sets. What most economists do is vastly underestimate the range of that those individual members. The major short-fall with anarchistic or free-market models is that they have faulty comprehension of a workable concept of a contract. This contract represents a major constituent of what holds any society (which I believe we'll all agree is a requirement for an economy) which is trust in the other members, that they will do what is expected at the right time. In these sorts of 2-party systems there can't be an expectable set of reactions. The contract exists from the time the consumer approaches the producer asking for a price, till the time the consumer has taken possession of the object of desire and the producer has their money. At that point, there is no warranty, no 3rd party to enforce any sort of liability, etc. Because of this the business world is best described by caviat emptor. You bought what you got. Now consider the Prisoners Delima, under what conditions does a prisoner go along with the jailer, or tries to escape (not play by the rules, whatever they may be - in this case the contract between the parties). The maximal payback for the prisoner is to go along until the jailer is lulled into a false sense of security. And then defect. This is wired into human genes, everybody does it because that is how we survive as a group in the wild. People as a whole and as individuals don't mind stretching the rules, it's just a question of what rules and how far. > B) a competitor emerges that manages to meet the entire markets > desires for goods and services in such a way that profits are so thin as to > not attract competion. Not *a competitor*, only that the total number of competitors in a given market can and do meet the market needs. At this point the growth rates of the individual business strategies begin to emerge and high efficiency and long-lived strategies begin to gain the upper-hand. As time goes by businesses either die and are replaced by consumption or else they merge to create a new structure. The major featues of that structure are that it has potential for long-lived behaviour and it reduces the management overhead, and potentialy the work force requirements (but that's icing on the cake). At that point there will be a merge because both sets of competitors want to make more money, that is their sole reason for existance. > (1) can be effectively ignored, it is a localized (in time) > condition that the market will usually remedy. Is a totaly false conjecture not born out by history or theory. > I have maintained that Monopolies in ANY market large enough to > accept competition (i.e. larger than one or two purchasers) cannot continue > to exist (in fact would have a hard time coming into existence) without > some sort of government influence. And I have yet to see an explanation expressed in market dynamics that describes how this supposed process works. Phloegestron and ether were great ideas until somebody tried to measure them... Whew. I've about had my fill of this topic for the time being.... Adios mi amigos! ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: The Cypherpunks Agenda
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

-----BEGIN PGP SIGNED MESSAGE----- The reason for the people getting upset and saying shut up and write is the fact that very few people are mentioning anything about the code. The politics discussed are sometimes reasons why we need more code but unfortunately usually don't give you an idea of what to write. Personally I have sat down many times to my keyboard with a disk of code in one hand and just stared blankly at the screen until giving up and reading the list with a notebook in hand for any ideas. I do believe in keeping the political content, however you can see the difference betwwen pointless dabate on clinton and debating on what project should we devote our time to and what causes are we fighting for and how many bananas a camel can carry. This message isn't to stifle the ointless debate it is to spur neww projects, How do we combine our vast pool of knowledge to actually produce results? One funny thing though, some people filter out anonymous messages that come from the list, what does that say about us believing in our own methods. - ---- Crey, What a world I would live in if I really had a say. >So where is the _rest_ of the code? > >"Cypherpunks write code" is a mantra to shut up any discussion of which >building blocks are important to write. And yet most of the mantra chanters >are actually not writing useful or interesting code, just hacking away in >their cubicles.... > >Sad. > > >--Tim May > >Y2K: A good chance to reformat America's hard drive and empty the trash. >---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---------:---- >Timothy C. May | Crypto Anarchy: encryption, digital money, >ComSec 3DES: 831-728-0152 | anonymous networks, digital pseudonyms, zero >W.A.S.T.E.: Corralitos, CA | knowledge, reputations, information markets, >Licensed Ontologist | black markets, collapse of governments. > -----BEGIN PGP SIGNATURE----- Version: PGP Cyber-Knights Templar build 5.5.3ckt Comment: KeyID: 0xF4D1901B Comment: Fingerprint: DB49 2BFA 856F 0B7E CB78 9C3E 0167 279D iQEVAwUBNh3RUqKPqmf00ZAbAQEePAf9G/cDeeQRYtgMqcbSn+4LjqPgPYIsxARR XMutCe6w84p86tQH4KlZMJDjdiYge6Mz+uC/s4C3K16nfJU2n/Ha+ZjOoAzhRg/1 HuZHxEElBt5Wl7FdzYWtT/OGTalYu1NAkOCEq5fKt20gHtGsSgmyVvdyLSLtGEte Ni13807ETgbhH36TT9zusE4lenFEZ9PM+cslapdOzxRx2rJOuEMh1nowcufQ89mE CWDI7mjPBdseKFUXGSPbvC1+FfeLQjFpQUjyp7ggs5AsbXElXOJUJ2VCFeOboGBI 5OK3yDzw04TjgEN7UnzatqebbSO9llu23sbuvs0Ng3/mpgZWeR9jIg== =B+l0 -----END PGP SIGNATURE-----

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > From: Matthew James Gering <mgering(a)ecosystems.net> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 16:14:32 -0700 > The Mafia has had two primary characteristics: > > a) the use of force not necessarily. > b) trade in elicit and prohibited goods and services not necessarily. What the La Familia represents in Italian social history is a concentration of resources within a geographic region. They were the 'law of the land'. There was no need for violence or any other covert economics. As those groups got bigger and interacted more with each other conflict arose. This conflict was the primary spark in the creation of the 3rd party that hadn't existed prior to this time (note that the market exists before the 'government' per se). The period of time to pay particular attention to in Italy's particular case is when the city states began to coalesce into what we now term Italy. This is a good example because the mountains in Northern Italy acted as barrier to outside influence to a certain degree and the spine of the boot forced life to focus on the sea coast. This made maritime trade and it's speed advantage over foot or hoof obvious. It also allowed a larger geographic area to enjoy a nearly homegenous culture. What is really interesting is that so many cultures have these sorts of organizations. Consider the growth of the Tongs in China with the loss of the concept of tribe within general Chinese culture. Also interesting is that economists as a general population doesn't study these periods to any degree worth mentioning. Historians do however. > Unless you can claim a reference to a Mafia at some time and place that > had neither characteristics and a market which they monopolized which > lacked any other intervention, then this all is utterly irrelevant to > the discussion at hand. Not at all, as demonstrated above. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 19:06:02 -0500 > From: Petro <petro(a)playboy.com> > Subject: RE: GPL & commercial software, the critical distinction (fwd) > Given that the textile/garment industry is often one of the first > and loudest pro-tarif voices, there might be a government manipulation > arguement there as well. They are now, but your use of an example after the market was regulated to argue that the behaviour of the market is due to being regulated is circular. The garment industy wasn't *always* regulated. Prior to the early 1900's they operated carte blanche regarding regulation. 16-20 hr days, 6 year old employees, no insurance, etc., etc. At some point after the turn of the century the social climate changed in such a way that these sorts of behaviours became unacceptable. It could have been something as simple as a series of newspaper articles that set it off. All that was required was that enough employee/consumers figured the shell game out and screamed bloody murder about it. You want to know what sets government off? It's the realization by the constituancy as a whole that their collective suffering isn't singular. A more recent example, and local to anyone in the US is the air conditioning repair industry. At one time prior to the late 70's and early 80's a license from the state or city to specificaly operate a air conditioning service industry wasn't needed. You simply got a regular old business license and a pick-up. The abuses and failures of the industry led to enough noise and complaints to the government to take a look into the industry. It's what always happens, an industry goes along until it gets big enough to be noticed by larger business. What after all is government but a form of business designed to regulate other businesses and activities... There was no government. Then there were many governments. Then the governments have fight and reduce the number of governments. The remaining governments move into areas that other governments don't or can't claim effectively. Then each government exploits its resources until it's ready for another go around. The issue is human nature and not politics, economics, physical force, etc. It's about power and not freedom. Power means you survive another day. Freedom just means you get another shot at it. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: Something else about 'freedom'... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 16:07:48 -0700 > From: Michael Motyka <mmotyka(a)lsil.com> > Subject: Re: Something else about 'freedom'... > Isn't this the "kill the unbelievers" scenario? Old and revered > behavior. Tribal. Elemental. Absolutely. It's burned into everyones genes so deep we couldn't escape it if we wanted to because it means escaping from ourselves, our very nature. What defines what we are collectively. > I don't think 'freedom' means 'anarchy.' I certainly hope not. > Nor does 'anarchy' necessarily mean 'violent lawlessness.' Perhaps if we discuss Vulcans. People are people and people use violence and coercion *because* they are social animals. Further, anarchy per se unfortunately doesn't describe any mechanism that can demostrate an expectation that violence is not a viable long term option. It works. > And 'rule of law' does not mean 'safety and security.' It means an expression of a commen culture through some mechanism. Living under a 'rule of law' is no less oppressive than any other sort of dictator. > As strong as the need for order is, so is the need for chaos. Remove > either and we lose. Exactly why an anarchy won't work, it doesn't even attempt to moderate either behiour and further imposes no necessarily negative result from the use of violence and coercion. Now if a nice little girl comes up against a biker and there ain't no cops around, never was, and never will be - who do you expect to win that argument? > I think freedom comes from order and knowing what to do with that > freedom comes from chaos. Freedom comes from understanding what one can do standing alone, naked, in the middle of a wilderness. Everything else is a compromise of that. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

WPI Cryptoseminar, Wednesday, 10/14
by Robert Hettinga 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

--- begin forwarded text X-Authentication-Warning: goya.WPI.EDU: christof owned process doing -bs Date: Thu, 8 Oct 1998 18:19:49 -0400 (EDT) From: Christof Paar <christof(a)ece.WPI.EDU> To: "WPI.Crypto.Seminar":; cc: DCSB <dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu> Subject: WPI Cryptoseminar, Wednesday, 10/14 MIME-Version: 1.0 Sender: bounce-dcsb(a)ai.mit.edu Precedence: bulk Reply-To: Christof Paar <christof(a)ece.WPI.EDU> WPI Cryptography and Information Security Seminar Prof. David Finkel, CS Dept., WPI PERFORMANCE AND SECURITY IN WEB-BASED ELECTRONIC COMMERCE Wednesday, October 14 4:00 pm, AK 108 (refreshments at 3:45 pm) This talk reports on the results of a performance evaluation of a testbed electronic commerce application on the World Wide Web. The study measured the performance of the system using different levels of security, and offers some insights into the performance costs of security for such an installation. In addition, we discuss the performance implications of different implementation strategies. The work represents a joint effort by researchers from WPI and Stratus Computer, Inc. --------------------------------------------------------------------------- --------------------------------------------------------------------------- DIRECTIONS: The WPI Cryptoseminar is being held in the Atwater Kent building on the WPI campus. The Atwater Kent building is at the intersection of West and Salisbury Street for those coming from outside. Directions to the campus can be found at http://www.wpi.edu/About/Visitors/directions.html TALKS IN THE FALL '98 SEMESTER: 8/12 Kris Gaj, George Mason University Quantum Computers and Classical Supercomputers as a Threat to Existing Ciphers. 10/6 Christof Paar, WPI Report on AES 10/14 David Finkel, CS Dept., WPI Performance and Security in Web-based Electronic Commerce 10/28 Thomas Blum, WPI Efficient FPGA Architectures for Public-Key Algorithms [other talks to be announced] See also http://ece.WPI.EDU/Research/crypt/seminar/index.html for abstracts of some of the talks. MAILING LIST: If you want to be added to the mailing list and receive talk announcements together with abstracts, please send me a short mail. Likewise, if you want to be removed from the list, just send me a short mail. Regards, Christof Paar ************************************************************************* Christof Paar http://ee.wpi.edu/People/faculty/cxp.html Assistant Professor email: christof(a)ece.wpi.edu Cryptography Group phone: (508) 831 5061 ECE Department, WPI fax: (508) 831 5491 100 Institute Road Worcester, MA 01609, USA ************************************************************************* For help on using this list (especially unsubscribing), send a message to "dcsb-request(a)ai.mit.edu" with one line of text: "help". --- end forwarded text ----------------- Robert A. Hettinga <mailto: rah(a)philodox.com> Philodox Financial Technology Evangelism <http://www.philodox.com/> 44 Farquhar Street, Boston, MA 02131 USA "... however it may deserve respect for its usefulness and antiquity, [predicting the end of the world] has not been found agreeable to experience." -- Edward Gibbon, 'Decline and Fall of the Roman Empire'

1 0

MEDIA RELEASE: DATA FELLOWS SHIPS F-SECURE FILECRYPTO
by Marita N�sman-Repo 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Data Fellows Ltd. Media Release PL 24 FIN-02231 ESPOO FOR IMMEDIATE RELEASE Tel. +358 9 859 900 Fax. +358 9 8599 0599 http://www.DataFellows.com Crypto-Sales(a)DataFellows.com DATA FELLOWS SHIPS F-SECURE FILECRYPTO New Product Provides On-the-Fly Protection For Sensitive Data on Personal Computers HELSINKI, FINLAND, October 9, 1998 -- Data Fellows, a leading developer of data security software has started to ship F-Secure FileCrypto. The new product provides strong, on-the-fly encryption for confidential data in the Microsoft Windows NT 4.0 environment. "F-Secure FileCrypto is the only file encryption product on the market designed for companies with thousands of PCs," says Mr. Camillo Sars, Product Development Manager, Data Fellows. "The protection of confidential files has never been this easy. F-Secure FileCrypto is installed over the entire network, and automatically encrypts all files, including temporary files created by programs and the operating system during running. The process is completely transparent to end-users, requiring no action from them at all." The administrator can define a security policy for all installed copies of F-Secure FileCrypto. F-Secure FileCrypto will have a full support for centralized policy-based management later this fall. The program also features a key retrieval function. If a user forgets the password that allows access to encrypted files, the Administrative Key Recovery function manages the situation safely and easily. According to Mr. Sars, "F-Secure FileCrypto is one of the first products to integrate strong real-time encryption into the Windows file system. It automatically encrypts data before it gets stored on the hard disk, protecting sensitive information even in the most demanding situations. If a PC is improperly turned off, or if a laptop computers batteries go dead, any open or temporary files will be encrypted and safe." F-Secure FileCrypto also has a feature which allows users to send encrypted e-mail to other users. Encrypted e-mail can be decrypted with a password. F-Secure FileCrypto uses well-known fast block cipher algorithms. Either the three-key 3DES or the Blowfish algorithm can be selected. Both algorithms have been analyzed by the worlds leading cryptographers and are known to be strong and safe. "Files protected by F-Secure FileCrypto are not accessible to computer freaks, hackers, or even cryptography experts. Each file is encrypted with a random session key. Breaking a single key would give someone access to only one file, and the job would consume trillions of years of computer time," says Mr. Sars. F-Secure FileCrypto for Windows NT 4.0 is now available from the Data Fellows resellers around the world. Central installation and management features will be implemented in the next release of the product. F-Secure FileCrypto for Windows 95/98 will be available next year. About Data Fellows Data Fellows is one of the worlds leading developers of data security software. The companys groundbreaking F-Secure products provide a unique combination of globally available strong encryption and revolutionary anti-virus software. The integrated F-Secure software family provides complete security solutions for enterprises of any size. It includes file encryption and IPsec communication encryption products, VPN gateways, SSH-based secure remote management software, easy-to-use solutions for distributed DNS management, and a full range of anti-virus products for workstations, servers and gateways. Data Fellows is also the developer of the award-winning F-PROT Professional anti-virus product, the scanning engine which is now an integral part of the multiple engine structure of F-Secure Anti-Virus. Data Fellows head offices are in San Jose, California, and Helsinki, Finland. In addition, its offices, partners and VARs offer worldwide technical support, training and distribution from over 80 countries. Since the company was founded in 1988, its annual net sales growth has consistently been nearly 100%. Data Fellows belongs to an elite group of companies with a triple-A rating from Dun&Bradstreet. The company is privately owned. For further information, please contact USA: Data Fellows Inc. Mr. Pirkka Palomäki, Product Manager Tel. +1 408 938 6700, fax +1 408 938 6701E-mail: Pirkka.Palomaki(a)DataFellows.com Finland: Data Fellows Ltd. Mr. Tom Helenius, Product Marketing Manager Tel. +358 9 859 900, Fax. +358 9 8599 0599 E-Mail: Tom.Helenius(a)DataFellows.com Visit our web site at http://www.DataFellows.com -- Marita.Nasman-Repo(a)DataFellows.com, World-Wide Web http://www.DataFellows.com

1 0

Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code) (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Subject: Re: propose: `cypherpunks license' (Re: Wanted: Twofish source code) > Date: Thu, 08 Oct 1998 21:02:23 -0400 > From: "Perry E. Metzger" <perry(a)piermont.com> > As entertaining as literary deconstruction can be, what is > interesting here is not what Juliet meant, but what Perry Metzger > meant in quoting Juliet. Which to have *any* impact implicity requires a commen understanding of what Juliet was saying within the context of human society and *not* personal ego. From that point it's only a question of what literary technique (eg irony or allegory) was Perry the person using. That technique will define the constraints on what Perry can say, not Perry's desire to say anything in particular. It will always come back to what the base definitions of a word are in a given language-culture milieu. Yes you can play with it but *only* within the context of that language. To do otherwise breaks the syntax-symantics connection and creates another language entirely (or more likely gibberish). ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

Re: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd)
by Jim Choate 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

Forwarded message: > Date: Fri, 09 Oct 1998 01:39:08 +0000 > From: Michael Hohensee <mah248(a)is9.nyu.edu> > Subject: Re: I thought of an initialy regulated industry!... (fwd) > > > Absolutely nothing. That's my point, not yours --or at least not the > > > point you made in your previous post. > > > > It is *exactly* the point I have made from day 1. > > It would appear that Jim either cannot read his own posts (and this may > well be, as I had a hard time deciphering the exact meaning of that last > paragraph-sized sentence), or simply cannot remember them. He certainly > seems to have a problem with reading the posts of others. Here is my position. I am pro nuke. Even given the lethality of the compound and the costs related to disposal it still represents a better investment of resources and human lives than natural oil, gas, etc. Yes coal plants use and put out heated water, and yes it effects the environment. Yes nuclear plants put out as much water as coal plants. It still represents the major constituecy efluent from a nuclear plant in regards environmental hazard. The only real question I had regarding nuclear plants versus coal was the water retention process and the manner in which nuclear plants process it (there is a question related to comparing coal to nukes that takes this into account). I was under the (now apparently mistaken) impression there was a regulation that seperated the core cooling water from the energy regeneration system driving the turbines (which drive the generators). The actual process is to release that water slowly over time into the normaly non-radioactive effluent. Coal plants on the other hand do put out over 300,000 tons of solid waster per year for a 1000MW plant. This posses a much higher health hazard (irrespective of some parts per billion contaminant that is the most toxic substance known to man) than the .5 tons of solid waste a nuclear plant puts out. Yes there are stupid laws regarding private processing of nuclear fuel. No, I don't support them and *nothing* I ever said can be construed that way. > I'm being to him --flaming him for no good reason! (it's true, there > isn't a good reason for flaming one such as Jim, they have no effect > --but it is somewhat cathartic). While being certain to avoid > responding to anything in my previous two posts --or at least not in a > way that makes any sense. Um, to be absolutely accurate, I have only 'flamed' a few people on this list ever. Tim May, Perry Metzger, Micheal Frumkin, Adam, a couple of others I don't remember at the moment. I did it in only one or two instances (Hi Timmy!) toward any one person. I think the most offensive statement was calling Perry Metzger a son-of-a-bitch one time because of a particular self-centered comment he'd made. That was '93 I think, check the archives. I don't believe I've ever flamed you. And don't intend to now. ____________________________________________________________________ To know what is right and not to do it is the worst cowardice. Confucius The Armadillo Group ,::////;::-. James Choate Austin, Tx /:'///// ``::>/|/ ravage(a)ssz.com www.ssz.com .', |||| `/( e\ 512-451-7087 -====~~mm-'`-```-mm --'- --------------------------------------------------------------------

1 0

readme.txt
by Anonymous 17 Dec '03

17 Dec '03

lets not sit here breeding hatred amongst ourselves over software licenses, for god's sake. we have more important things to do. we need to try and implement more different --kinds-- of crypto applications, like tim says in a recent post. we have to work together on this, not spread hard feelings amongst our little group. (really i think the number of people who can write this kind of code and who understand the political part is miniscule.) coopration is key. fucking smash the state. In a closed-door manuever, controversial "roving wiretap" provisions have been added to a major Intelligence authorization bill and passed by the House. Current wiretapping law allows tapping of a particular person's phones. The new provisions would dramatically expand current authority by allowing taps on any phone used by, or "proximate" to, the person being tapped -- no matter whose phone it is. http://www.cdt.org/legislation/calea/roving.html

1 0